The cost of healthcare is a huge economic problem in the US. Obama was wise to address the issue. I'm not sure if the solution we ended up with (Obama's version of the Romney plan) really will solve the cost issues, but you really know nothing about the American economy if you can't recognize the economic significance of the cost of healthcare in the US.

Prolate,

A little snarky on this subject... eh (that's Canadian)

I wasn't suggesting that healthcare costs aren't a problem. They are.

I don't agree that focusing on the financing end of it (insurance) was the appropriate approach. While insurance companies are a small part of the problem, what they really provided was an easy target. Insurance companies are evil. Hospitals, Doctors, Pharma, Device Mfrs, etc. - they are good guys.

But I digress - the point is that amidst an enormous economic downturn focusing on a program that, at least in the near future, is going to actually add cost to the system and limit job creation doesn't really make sense.

The cost of healthcare is a huge economic problem in the US. Obama was wise to address the issue. I'm not sure if the solution we ended up with (Obama's version of the Romney plan) really will solve the cost issues, but you really know nothing about the American economy if you can't recognize the economic significance of the cost of healthcare in the US.

Prolate,

A little snarky on this subject... eh (that's Canadian)

I wasn't suggesting that healthcare costs aren't a problem. They are.

I don't agree that focusing on the financing end of it (insurance) was the appropriate approach. While insurance companies are a small part of the problem, what they really provided was an easy target. Insurance companies are evil. Hospitals, Doctors, Pharma, Device Mfrs, etc. - they are good guys.

But I digress - the point is that amidst an enormous economic downturn focusing on a program that, at least in the near future, is going to actually add cost to the system and limit job creation doesn't really make sense.

The bill really doesn't attack private health insurance though . . . in fact, the whole exchange concept is based on making private health insurance more widely available.

The bill's impact on jobs or the cost of health care is also quite unclear at this point, especially since most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with addressing a serious issue when Obama did. Coming off the election he had the momentum required to make a change and took advantage of it. I don't think the bill worsened the recession. Nor do I think it took Obama's focus off other things . . . he continued to work on the stimulus bill, for instance . . . apparently much to the Republican's dismay . . .

The cost of healthcare is a huge economic problem in the US. Obama was wise to address the issue. I'm not sure if the solution we ended up with (Obama's version of the Romney plan) really will solve the cost issues, but you really know nothing about the American economy if you can't recognize the economic significance of the cost of healthcare in the US.

Prolate,

A little snarky on this subject... eh (that's Canadian)

I wasn't suggesting that healthcare costs aren't a problem. They are.

I don't agree that focusing on the financing end of it (insurance) was the appropriate approach. While insurance companies are a small part of the problem, what they really provided was an easy target. Insurance companies are evil. Hospitals, Doctors, Pharma, Device Mfrs, etc. - they are good guys.

But I digress - the point is that amidst an enormous economic downturn focusing on a program that, at least in the near future, is going to actually add cost to the system and limit job creation doesn't really make sense.

The bill really doesn't attack private health insurance though . . . in fact, the whole exchange concept is based on making private health insurance more widely available.

The bill's impact on jobs or the cost of health care is also quite unclear at this point, especially since most of its provisions don't go into effect until 2014.

Honestly, I see nothing wrong with addressing a serious issue when Obama did. Coming off the election he had the momentum required to make a change and took advantage of it. I don't think the bill worsened the recession. Nor do I think it took Obama's focus off other things . . . he continued to work on the stimulus bill, for instance . . . apparently much to the Republican's dismay . . .

Being in the business I do agree we needed reform. However, we fixed or focused on things that did not need fixing or focus. Perhaps a small adjustment. We need affordability we will get rate increase at a very high clip.

We were told by a very larger carrier that rate increases for some will be 116%. It will be very interesting in 2014. Some will get help from the bill and many will get hurt.

Does anyone understand the ratio is now set at 3:1 in 2014. This will drive up rates for many younger peopl who may decide the fine is the better option.

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Canada is smaller Rusty, but I'm not sure it's all that less complex. Toronto, for instance, just surpassed Chicago in size, has lots of immigration, lots of poverty, etc. Government healthcare is pretty much the standard in the world's advanced nations. I'm not sure I've ever heard a convincing argument about why it wouldn't be able to work in the US if there were the will to try it .

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Good post prolate,

I won't prtend to know a lot about Canada and thier delivery system and we do need some cost control here. However, it's very upsetting that this massive bill misses the mark on many levels.

You are right about access and rates. We had access and laws that help the uninsurred what we did not have and will not get is affordable healthcare. My thought was to dissmantle the group market all together and lets us all buy an individual policy based on age, tabacco use and gender. The policy would be GI (guaranteed issued) so eveyone could pruchase one. Have the insurance capped at say 150K and Uncle Sam insure the back end risk. This will drive down the cost as the carriers rick would be limited to max limit. Perhaps toss the wellness vists on Uncle Sam as well and make sure we all get our yearly check up. Lets catch the issues before they become issues.

Canada is smaller Rusty, but I'm not sure it's all that less complex. Toronto, for instance, just surpassed Chicago in size, has lots of immigration, lots of poverty, etc. Government healthcare is pretty much the standard in the world's advanced nations. I'm not sure I've ever heard a convincing argument about why it wouldn't be able to work in the US if there were the will to try it .

Umm, I am pretty sure Canada is less complicated than all of the US. LOL

California itself is more complicated than all of Canada. One reason, it's the same size and one state. LMAO

Nice try to gain some leverage back thinking you are more intelligent, but it's not going to happen here, Prolate. Sorry.

Canada is smaller Rusty, but I'm not sure it's all that less complex. Toronto, for instance, just surpassed Chicago in size, has lots of immigration, lots of poverty, etc. Government healthcare is pretty much the standard in the world's advanced nations. I'm not sure I've ever heard a convincing argument about why it wouldn't be able to work in the US if there were the will to try it .

Umm, I am pretty sure Canada is less complicated than all of the US. LOL

California itself is more complicated than all of Canada. One reason, it's the same size and one state. LMAO

Nice try to gain some leverage back thinking you are more intelligent, but it's not going to happen here, Prolate. Sorry.

This is another debate you will not win.

Been drinking?

If you want to make an argument for your point of view, explain how one is more complicated than the other and, more importantly, precisely what particular complications would prevent government provided healthcare from working in the states when it works in Canada, the UK, much of continental Europe, etc. (see link below). Otherwise, you're just spewing crap . .. and that doesn't sound particularly intelligent.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, mostly because I really do think you've been a bit heavy in the sauce . . .

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Good post prolate,

I won't prtend to know a lot about Canada and thier delivery system and we do need some cost control here. However, it's very upsetting that this massive bill misses the mark on many levels.

You are right about access and rates. We had access and laws that help the uninsurred what we did not have and will not get is affordable healthcare. My thought was to dissmantle the group market all together and lets us all buy an individual policy based on age, tabacco use and gender. The policy would be GI (guaranteed issued) so eveyone could pruchase one. Have the insurance capped at say 150K and Uncle Sam insure the back end risk. This will drive down the cost as the carriers rick would be limited to max limit. Perhaps toss the wellness vists on Uncle Sam as well and make sure we all get our yearly check up. Lets catch the issues before they become issues.

Interesting idea to have some portion of the risk insured by private carriers and the rest covered by the government. I'm curious about your idea for dismantling the group market--if anything, there's been a desire to increase the number of people who can be covered through group plans. (Generally, coverage can be provided more cheaply through group purchasing arrangements.) What do you think would be the advantage of getting rid of group plans?

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Good post prolate,

I won't prtend to know a lot about Canada and thier delivery system and we do need some cost control here. However, it's very upsetting that this massive bill misses the mark on many levels.

You are right about access and rates. We had access and laws that help the uninsurred what we did not have and will not get is affordable healthcare. My thought was to dissmantle the group market all together and lets us all buy an individual policy based on age, tabacco use and gender. The policy would be GI (guaranteed issued) so eveyone could pruchase one. Have the insurance capped at say 150K and Uncle Sam insure the back end risk. This will drive down the cost as the carriers rick would be limited to max limit. Perhaps toss the wellness vists on Uncle Sam as well and make sure we all get our yearly check up. Lets catch the issues before they become issues.

Interesting idea to have some portion of the risk insured by private carriers and the rest covered by the government. I'm curious about your idea for dismantling the group market--if anything, there's been a desire to increase the number of people who can be covered through group plans. (Generally, coverage can be provided more cheaply through group purchasing arrangements.) What do you think would be the advantage of getting rid of group plans?

The thought that group insurance is cheaper is not always true. Size does not matter as much as one would think. I help clients secure coverage and the rates for my smaller groups are many times cheaper than my larger groups. With a mandate and GI then the pool will take care of size for those that think it matters. What matters is health........ Good health!

My ind rates for my family is less than $400 per month. For the same plan my groups pay over $1500 again for the plan. Why? The regualtions drive up the rates.

My idea would be put me out of business but its the right thing to do. Why should your boss decide your insurance carrier? Your network of doctors? Why should the claims of your co workers have an impact on your rates?

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Good post prolate,

I won't prtend to know a lot about Canada and thier delivery system and we do need some cost control here. However, it's very upsetting that this massive bill misses the mark on many levels.

You are right about access and rates. We had access and laws that help the uninsurred what we did not have and will not get is affordable healthcare. My thought was to dissmantle the group market all together and lets us all buy an individual policy based on age, tabacco use and gender. The policy would be GI (guaranteed issued) so eveyone could pruchase one. Have the insurance capped at say 150K and Uncle Sam insure the back end risk. This will drive down the cost as the carriers rick would be limited to max limit. Perhaps toss the wellness vists on Uncle Sam as well and make sure we all get our yearly check up. Lets catch the issues before they become issues.

Interesting idea to have some portion of the risk insured by private carriers and the rest covered by the government. I'm curious about your idea for dismantling the group market--if anything, there's been a desire to increase the number of people who can be covered through group plans. (Generally, coverage can be provided more cheaply through group purchasing arrangements.) What do you think would be the advantage of getting rid of group plans?

The thought that group insurance is cheaper is not always true. Size does not matter as much as one would think. I help clients secure coverage and the rates for my smaller groups are many times cheaper than my larger groups. With a mandate and GI then the pool will take care of size for those that think it matters. What matters is health........ Good health!

My ind rates for my family is less than $400 per month. For the same plan my groups pay over $1500 again for the plan. Why? The regualtions drive up the rates.

My idea would be put me out of business but its the right thing to do. Why should your boss decide your insurance carrier? Your network of doctors? Why should the claims of your co workers have an impact on your rates?

Interesting. I've mostly read that group rates are lower and individual plans are more expensive, but you're right that what really matters is the size and health of the underlying risk pool.

I don't like the employer-based system we have in the states. I think it's expensive for companies (and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against companies in countries where healthcare is government funded), plus as you say it means individuals are at the mercy of their employer (and employment status) for choosing and even having coverage.

Rates though are going to be determined in large part by the health of others in the risk pool whether you're in a group plan or an individual plan, so you really can't avoid the claims of others affecting your own rates. You can, of course, have different rates based on health status, but that tends to make coverage unaffordable for old and sick people (GI by itself doesn't solve the issue unless rates are controlled). There are other factors that affect rates--coverage provisions and administrative efficiency--but health status (and resulting claims cost) is the biggest factor.

Hah! I see, you have no argument. You can shout "more complex, more complex" and type "LOL" till you're blue in the face, but it explains absolutely nothing about why the US can't have government paid health care and most other advanced nations can. You actually sound just like the guys who argue incessantly that gun control won't work in the US because the US is . . . well, different.

Hub . . . the Obama plan seems to me to focus on expanding coverage (something which does need to be done, I believe), but I don't see how it controls underlying costs. That's where I think the Obama plan falls short. Controlling costs, though, is a bit difficult without going to a more government-controlled system like most other advanced countries have. That was politically unpopular in the US, though, so I'm not sure the Democrats could have gotten such a bill through Congress (and Obama didn't push for such a bill either--probably not wanting to commit political suicide).

Personally, having lived in both the US (my native country) and in a country that has government-provided health care (Canada), I think there are lots of pluses to government-provided health care. No system is perfect, but controlling costs in a private sector system seems pretty hard to do. When the government controls things, they can force prices down. Despite what you read in the American press, healthcare here in Canada (or at least in Ontario, since each Province has its own plan) is pretty good, wait times are reasonable for most services (actually shorter than I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts), and costs are much, much lower. Plus everyone is covered. The system works pretty well, actually. I don't quite understand why Americans fear a government-controlled system so much. My experience with that kind of system in Ontario has been quite positive. I also was quite impressed with how well the healthcare system in Paris (France, not Ontario) worked when I got sick while visiting. I actually had a doctor and a lab technician make a "house call" to my hotel room!

Good post prolate,

I won't prtend to know a lot about Canada and thier delivery system and we do need some cost control here. However, it's very upsetting that this massive bill misses the mark on many levels.

You are right about access and rates. We had access and laws that help the uninsurred what we did not have and will not get is affordable healthcare. My thought was to dissmantle the group market all together and lets us all buy an individual policy based on age, tabacco use and gender. The policy would be GI (guaranteed issued) so eveyone could pruchase one. Have the insurance capped at say 150K and Uncle Sam insure the back end risk. This will drive down the cost as the carriers rick would be limited to max limit. Perhaps toss the wellness vists on Uncle Sam as well and make sure we all get our yearly check up. Lets catch the issues before they become issues.

Interesting idea to have some portion of the risk insured by private carriers and the rest covered by the government. I'm curious about your idea for dismantling the group market--if anything, there's been a desire to increase the number of people who can be covered through group plans. (Generally, coverage can be provided more cheaply through group purchasing arrangements.) What do you think would be the advantage of getting rid of group plans?

The thought that group insurance is cheaper is not always true. Size does not matter as much as one would think. I help clients secure coverage and the rates for my smaller groups are many times cheaper than my larger groups. With a mandate and GI then the pool will take care of size for those that think it matters. What matters is health........ Good health!

My ind rates for my family is less than $400 per month. For the same plan my groups pay over $1500 again for the plan. Why? The regualtions drive up the rates.

My idea would be put me out of business but its the right thing to do. Why should your boss decide your insurance carrier? Your network of doctors? Why should the claims of your co workers have an impact on your rates?

Interesting. I've mostly read that group rates are lower and individual plans are more expensive, but you're right that what really matters is the size and health of the underlying risk pool.

I don't like the employer-based system we have in the states. I think it's expensive for companies (and puts them at a competitive disadvantage against companies in countries where healthcare is government funded), plus as you say it means individuals are at the mercy of their employer (and employment status) for choosing and even having coverage.

Rates though are going to be determined in large part by the health of others in the risk pool whether you're in a group plan or an individual plan, so you really can't avoid the claims of others affecting your own rates. You can, of course, have different rates based on health status, but that tends to make coverage unaffordable for old and sick people (GI by itself doesn't solve the issue unless rates are controlled). There are other factors that affect rates--coverage provisions and administrative efficiency--but health status (and resulting claims cost) is the biggest factor.

The ind market won't tie me to my group plan of 50 employees that do not care to care their health. No easy answers for sure. We need reform in a big way. Lets shake it up and take the pressure off the business owners. I know we agree on that. Why is auto insurance rate not rising by 15% per year? We do demand the provider to cover things that breaks and we have a deductible before the carries pay the claim. Oil changes, wiper blades, gas etc. All on the consumer. Healthcare, pays everything for a copay. We are blind tho the real cost and cant be apart of the solution.